L.A. Johnson writing for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in "West Virginia state lawmaker proposes ban on Barbie just before she turns 50," reports that
West Virginia Democratic Delegate Jeff Eldridge Tuesday proposed a bill to ban the sale of Barbie and similar dolls that promote physical beauty to the detriment of girls' intellectual and emotional development.
There are many things wrong with the proposal. The smallest is that he reversed causality. I doubt many girls, shopping for a new calculator, innocently happen by Barbie and are transformed by her hypnotic beauty into girls obsessed with their own physical imperfection, and drained by their inability to match hers. It is more likely that girls interested in physical beauty and fashion select dolls that match their interests. It is more likely still that the intellectual and emotional development of girls is simply not affected by playing with Barbies.
More significantly, when did anyone begin to believe that we, through our elected representatives, had the right or wisdom to dictate the types of dolls parents purchase for their children? What kind of people could elect a delegate in West Virginia who would make such an arrogant proposal let alone elect a sufficient number of representatives in Montpelier, Vermont to ban Barbie (2006)? I hope that the voters in West Virginian and Montpelier were fooled and that their representatives soon find themselves looking for other employment.
Posts
Some people believe the representatives are "delegates" who are supposed to directly represent the views of the people they govern. Others believe the representatives should be the people who "know better" and decide what we need to do. In either case, the delegates' action of making this proposal was not justified...perhaps it would be more effective to ban beauty magazines and beauty contests.
ReplyDeleteFor those who believe that representatives should serve as delegates of the peoples' vote, the people themselves would show they do not approve of Barbies by not purchasing the Barbies. Barbie's current popularity shows that most people are probably not concerned that Barbie is adversely affected their daughter's growth. And for those who believe the representatives are the ones who "know better," there are many other more important and influential topics that the representatives should be worrying about. It is disappointing that while our country is involved in a war and an economic downturn, these representatives are worrying about Barbie.
Seriously, I played with Barbies when I was younger and as far as I know I have no life altering emotional or intellectual issues because of it. I agree with what you said in the fact that banning Barbies takes away from a person's freedom to buy what they want. The fact that Eldridge is focused on Barbies and not the economy or another more important issue makes me wonder if he really should be the one proposing laws.
ReplyDeleteBella(MHS)
Since when does the government care about the self image of grade school girls? Especially with the other problems that our country is facing at the moment. If we're going to outlaw Barbies lets remove magazines with fashion models and make everyone attractive wear masks to equalize everyone like in kurt vonnegut's harrison bergeron!! Pathetic. The government has no right to take dolls away from children especially when the so called problem with these dolls has nothing to do with the nation as a whole.
ReplyDelete-Bryan E.
A ban on the sale of Barbies could be detrimental to the sale of toys for children, particularly concerning girls. The Barbie doll can just as easily be an inspiration to be a professional and successful individual. The child playing with the doll responds to the incentive presented by the parents. More so, the relationship may be dissected further to what clothes are provided for the doll. The Barbie clothing line provides multiple opportunities for dressing the doll. If the parent of that child is providing the incentive for the doll to be dressed in a bikini rather than in a business suit, it is the responsibility of the parents', not the company. If the doll is bad for a child's mental health, why should the sale be outlawed altogether when products containing alcohol and tobacco which are more malign to physical health than bad self-image is to mental health. Also, too many variables contribute to the "self-image" of a child for a toy to play that specific of a role.
ReplyDeleteChelsea Schermerhorn
Bruceville-Eddy